The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

16 results for "rabbinic"

1. Tosefta, Parah, 3.7-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 158

3.7. פקע מעורה ומשערה ומבשרה חוץ לגיתה יחזיר ואם לא החזיר פסול. חוץ ממערכתה הרי זה מרבה עליו ושורפו במקומו ר\"א אומר כזית מעכבת פחות מכזית אין מעכבת. פקע מקרנה ומטלפה ומפרשה א\"צ להחזיר שאין זבח שאין מעכב בחיה אין מעכב בשריפתה ר\"א בר צדוק הוסיף אשליך אשליך אשליך והם אמרו לו הן ג\"פ על כל דבר ודבר. בין שקרעה ביד בין שקרעה בסכין ובין שנקרעה מאליה ובין שהשליך שלשתן זה אחר זה <זה אחר זה> כשרה. 3.8. נתנן עד שלא הוצת האור ברובה או משנעשית אפר פסולה. נטל עצם או שחור וקדש בו הרי זה לא עשה כלום אם יש עליו אבק כל שהוא אם מגופה כותשו ומקדש בו וכשר. וחולקין אותו לשלשה חלקים אחד ניתן בחיל ואחד ניתן בהר המשחה ואחד מתחלק לכל המשמרות זה שמתחלק לכל המשמרות היו ישראל מזין הימנו. זה שניתן בהר המשחה היו כהנים מקדשין בו. זה שניתן בחיל היו משמרין שנאמר (במדבר יט) והיתה לעדת בני ישראל למשמרת.

2. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

3. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.1-11.296, 11.302, 11.303, 11.304, 11.305, 11.306, 11.307, 11.308, 11.309, 11.310, 11.311, 11.312, 11.313, 11.314, 11.315, 11.316, 11.317, 11.318, 11.319, 11.320, 11.321, 11.322, 11.323, 11.324, 11.325, 11.326, 11.327, 11.328, 11.329, 11.330, 11.331, 11.332, 11.333, 11.334, 11.335, 11.336, 11.337, 11.338, 11.339, 11.340, 11.341, 11.342, 11.343, 11.344, 11.345, 13.74, 13.75, 13.76, 13.77, 13.78, 13.79, 13.288, 13.289, 13.290, 13.291, 13.292, 13.293, 13.294, 13.295, 13.296, 13.297, 13.298, 13.372, 14.168, 14.169, 14.170, 14.171, 14.172, 14.173, 14.174, 14.175, 14.176, 14.177, 14.178, 14.179, 14.180, 14.181, 14.182, 14.183, 14.184, 14.365, 14.366, 15.62, 15.63, 15.64, 15.65, 15.66, 15.67, 15.68, 15.69, 15.70, 15.71, 15.72, 15.73, 15.74, 15.75, 15.76, 15.77, 15.78, 15.79, 15.80, 15.81, 15.82, 15.83, 15.84, 15.85, 15.86, 15.87, 15.202, 15.203, 15.204, 15.205, 15.206, 15.207, 15.208, 15.209, 15.210, 15.211, 15.212, 15.213, 15.214, 15.215, 15.216, 15.217, 15.218, 15.219, 15.220, 15.221, 15.222, 15.223, 15.224, 15.225, 15.226, 15.227, 15.228, 15.229, 15.230, 15.231, 15.232, 15.233, 15.234, 15.235, 15.236, 15.237, 15.238, 15.239, 15.240, 15.241, 15.242, 15.425, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, 18.8, 18.9, 18.10, 18.23, 18.24, 18.25, 20.34, 20.35, 20.36, 20.37, 20.38, 20.39, 20.40, 20.41, 20.42, 20.43, 20.44, 20.45, 20.46, 20.47, 20.48, 20.49, 20.50, 20.51, 20.52, 20.53 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156

11.337. δειχθείσης δ' αὐτῷ τῆς Δανιήλου βίβλου, ἐν ᾗ τινα τῶν ̔Ελλήνων καταλύσειν τὴν Περσῶν ἀρχὴν ἐδήλου, νομίσας αὐτὸς εἶναι ὁ σημαινόμενος τότε μὲν ἡσθεὶς ἀπέλυσε τὸ πλῆθος, τῇ δ' ἐπιούσῃ προσκαλεσάμενος ἐκέλευσεν αὐτοὺς αἰτεῖσθαι δωρεάς, ἃς ἂν αὐτοὶ θέλωσιν.

11.337. And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bid them ask what favors they pleased of him;

4. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.210-1.215, 1.269-1.270, 1.432-1.444, 6.423 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157, 158

1.211. Σέξτος δὲ Καῖσαρ δείσας περὶ τῷ νεανίᾳ, μή τι παρὰ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀποληφθεὶς πάθῃ, πέμπει πρὸς ̔Υρκανὸν τοὺς παραγγελοῦντας διαρρήδην ἀπολύειν ̔Ηρώδην τῆς φονικῆς δίκης. ὁ δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ὡρμημένος, ἠγάπα γὰρ ̔Ηρώδην, ἀποψηφίζεται. 1.212. Καὶ ὃς ὑπολαμβάνων ἄκοντος τοῦ βασιλέως διαφυγεῖν εἰς Δαμασκὸν ἀνεχώρησεν πρὸς Σέξτον παρασκευαζόμενος οὐδὲ αὖθις ὑπακοῦσαι καλοῦντι. καὶ πάλιν οἱ πονηροὶ παρώξυνον τὸν ̔Υρκανὸν κατ' ὀργήν τε οἴχεσθαι τὸν ̔Ηρώδην λέγοντες καὶ παρεσκευασμένον κατ' αὐτοῦ: πιστεύων δ' ὁ βασιλεὺς οὐκ εἶχεν ὅ τι χρὴ δρᾶν. 1.213. ὡς ἑώρα μείζονα τὸν διάφορον. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὑπὸ Σέξτου Καίσαρος στρατηγὸς ἀνεδείχθη κοίλης Συρίας καὶ Σαμαρείας οὐ μόνον τε κατ' εὔνοιαν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους ἀλλὰ καὶ δυνάμει φοβερὸς ἦν. εἰς ἔσχατον δέους κατέπεσεν ̔Υρκανός, ὅσον οὔπω προσδοκῶν ἐπ' αὐτὸν ὁρμήσειν μετὰ στρατιᾶς. 1.214. Καὶ οὐ διήμαρτεν τῆς οἰήσεως: ὁ γὰρ ̔Ηρώδης κατ' ὀργὴν τῆς περὶ τὴν δίκην ἀπειλῆς στρατιὰν ἀθροίσας ἐπὶ ̔Ιεροσολύμων ἦγεν καταλύσων τὸν ̔Υρκανόν. κἂν ἔφθη τοῦτο ποιήσας, εἰ μὴ προεξελθόντες ὅ τε πατὴρ καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἔκλασαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ὁρμὴν παρακαλοῦντες καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπειλῇ καὶ ἀνατάσει μόνῃ μετρῆσαι τὴν ἄμυναν, φείσασθαι δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως, ὑφ' οὗ μέχρι τοσαύτης δυνάμεως προῆλθεν: δεῖν τε, εἰ κληθεὶς ἐπὶ δίκην παρώξυνται, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀφέσεως εὐχαριστεῖν καὶ μὴ πρὸς μὲν τὸ σκυθρωπὸν ἀπαντᾶν, περὶ δὲ τῆς σωτηρίας ἀχάριστον εἶναι. 1.215. εἰ δὲ δὴ λογιστέον εἴη καὶ πολέμου ῥοπὰς βραβεύεσθαι θεῷ, πλέον εἶναι τῆς στρατείας τὸ ἄδικον. διὸ δὴ καὶ περὶ τῆς νίκης οὐ χρὴ κατὰ πᾶν εὔελπιν εἶναι, μέλλοντά γε συμβαλεῖν βασιλεῖ καὶ συντρόφῳ καὶ πολλάκις μὲν εὐεργέτῃ, χαλεπῷ δὲ οὐδέποτε, πλὴν ὅσον πονηροῖς συμβούλοις χρώμενος ἐπισείσειεν αὐτῷ σκιὰν ἀδικήματος. πείθεται τούτοις ̔Ηρώδης ὑπολαβὼν εἰς τὰς ἐλπίδας αὔταρκες εἶναι καὶ τὸ τὴν ἰσχὺν ἐπιδείξασθαι τῷ ἔθνει. 1.269. Πάρθοι δὲ μετὰ τὰς ἁρπαγὰς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὕβρεως ἐχώρησαν ὡς ἐμπλῆσαι μὲν ἀκηρύκτου πολέμου τὴν χώραν ἅπασαν, ἀνάστατον δὲ ποιῆσαι τὴν Μαρισαίων πόλιν, μὴ μόνον δὲ καταστῆσαι βασιλέα ̓Αντίγονον, ἀλλὰ καὶ παραδοῦναι αὐτῷ Φασάηλόν τε καὶ ̔Υρκανὸν δεσμώτας αἰκίσασθαι. 1.432. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν παρῆλθεν, ἀποπεμψάμενος ἣν ἰδιώτης ἦκτο γαμετήν, γένος ἦν ἐξ ̔Ιεροσολύμων Δωρὶς ὄνομα, γαμεῖ Μαριάμμην τὴν ̓Αλεξάνδρου τοῦ ̓Αριστοβούλου θυγατέρα, δι' ἣν αὐτῷ στασιασθῆναι συνέβη τὸν οἶκον καὶ τάχιον μέν, μάλιστα δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ ̔Ρώμης ἄφιξιν. 1.433. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τὸν ἐκ τῆς Δωρίδος υἱὸν ̓Αντίπατρον διὰ τοὺς ἐκ Μαριάμμης ἐφυγάδευσεν τῆς πόλεως μόναις ταῖς ἑορταῖς ἀφεὶς κατιέναι: ἔπειτα τὸν πάππον τῆς γυναικὸς ̔Υρκανὸν ἐκ Πάρθων πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα δι' ὑπόνοιαν ἐπιβουλῆς ἀνεῖλεν, ὃν ᾐχμαλωτίσατο μὲν Βαζαφράνης καταδραμὼν Συρίαν, ἐξῃτήσαντο δὲ κατὰ οἶκτον οἱ ὑπὲρ Εὐφράτην ὁμοεθνεῖς. 1.434. καὶ εἴ γε τούτοις ἐπείσθη παραινοῦσιν μὴ διαβῆναι πρὸς ̔Ηρώδην, οὐκ ἂν παραπώλετο: δέλεαρ δ' αὐτῷ θανάτου τῆς υἱωνῆς ὁ γάμος κατέστη: τούτῳ γὰρ πεποιθὼς καὶ περισσόν τι τῆς πατρίδος ἐφιέμενος ἧκεν. παρώξυνεν δὲ ̔Ηρώδην οὐκ αὐτὸς ἀντιποιούμενος βασιλείας, ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ τὸ βασιλεύειν ἐπέβαλλεν αὐτῷ. 1.435. Τῶν δὲ ἐκ Μαριάμμης πέντε τέκνων γενομένων δύο μὲν θυγατέρες, τρεῖς δ' ἦσαν υἱεῖς. καὶ τούτων ὁ νεώτατος μὲν ἐν ̔Ρώμῃ παιδευόμενος τελευτᾷ, δύο δὲ τοὺς πρεσβυτάτους βασιλικῶς ἦγεν διά τε τὴν μητρῴαν εὐγένειαν καὶ ὅτι βασιλεύοντι γεγόνεισαν αὐτῷ. 1.436. τὸ δὲ τούτων ἰσχυρότερον ὁ Μαριάμμης ἔρως συνήργει καθ' ἡμέραν ἐκκαίων ̔Ηρώδην λαβρότερος, ὡς μηδενὸς τῶν διὰ τὴν στεργομένην λυπηρῶν αἰσθάνεσθαι: τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἦν μῖσος εἰς αὐτὸν τῆς Μαριάμμης, ὅσος ἐκείνου πρὸς αὐτὴν ἔρως. 1.437. ἔχουσα δὲ τὴν μὲν ἀπέχθειαν ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων εὔλογον, τὴν δὲ παρρησίαν ἐκ τοῦ φιλεῖσθαι, φανερῶς ὠνείδιζεν αὐτῷ τὰ κατὰ τὸν πάππον ̔Υρκανὸν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν ̓Ιωνάθην: οὐδὲ γὰρ τούτου καίπερ ὄντος παιδὸς ἐφείσατο, δοὺς μὲν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην ἑπτακαιδεκαέτει, μετὰ δὲ τὴν τιμὴν κτείνας εὐθέως, ἐπειδὴ τὴν ἱερὰν ἐσθῆτα λαβόντι καὶ τῷ βωμῷ προσελθόντι καθ' ἑορτὴν ἄθρουν ἐπεδάκρυσεν τὸ πλῆθος. πέμπεται μὲν οὖν ὁ παῖς διὰ νυκτὸς εἰς ̔Ιεριχοῦντα, ἐκεῖ δὲ κατ' ἐντολὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν βαπτιζόμενος ἐν κολυμβήθρᾳ τελευτᾷ. 1.438. Διὰ ταῦθ' ̔Ηρώδην μὲν ὠνείδιζεν ἡ Μαριάμμη, καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα δειναῖς ἐξύβριζεν λοιδορίαις. ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν πεφίμωτο τοῖς ἱμέροις, δεινὴ δὲ τὰς γυναῖκας ἀγανάκτησις εἰσῄει, καὶ πρὸς ὃ μάλιστα κινήσειν τὸν ̔Ηρώδην ἔμελλον, εἰς μοιχείαν διέβαλλον αὐτήν, 1.439. ἄλλα τε πολλὰ πρὸς τὸ πιθανὸν ἐνσκευαζόμεναι καὶ κατηγοροῦσαι διότι τὴν εἰκόνα τὴν ἑαυτῆς πέμψειεν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ̓Αντωνίῳ καὶ δι' ὑπερβολὴν ἀσελγείας ἀποῦσαν δείξειεν ἑαυτὴν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικομανοῦντι καὶ βιάζεσθαι δυναμένῳ. 1.441. Μέλλων οὖν ἀποδημήσειν ̓Ιωσήπῳ τῷ ἀνδρὶ Σαλώμης τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτοῦ, πιστὸς δὲ ἦν καὶ διὰ τὸ κῆδος εὔνους, παρατίθεται τὴν γυναῖκα, κρύφα δοὺς ἐντολὰς ἀναιρεῖν αὐτήν, εἰ κἀκεῖνον ̓Αντώνιος. ὁ δὲ ̓Ιώσηπος, οὔτι κακοήθως, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἔρωτα τοῦ βασιλέως παραστῆσαι τῇ γυναικὶ βουλόμενος, ὡς οὐδὲ ἀποθανὼν αὐτῆς ὑπομένοι διαζευχθῆναι, τὸ ἀπόρρητον ἐκφαίνει. 1.442. κἀκείνη πρὸς ἐπανήκοντα τὸν ̔Ηρώδην πολλά τε περὶ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτὴν συμπαθοῦς ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ἐπομνύμενον, ὡς οὐδ' ἐρασθείη ποτὲ γυναικὸς ἄλλης, “πάνυ γοῦν, εἶπεν, ταῖς πρὸς τὸν ̓Ιώσηπον ἐντολαῖς ἐπεδείξω τὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔρωτα κτεῖναί με προστάξας.” 1.443. ̓́Εκφρων εὐθέως ἀκούσας τὸ ἀπόρρητον ἦν, καὶ οὐκ ἄν ποτε τὸν ̓Ιώσηπον ἐξαγγεῖλαι τὴν ἐντολὴν φάμενος εἰ μὴ διαφθείρειεν αὐτήν, ἐνεθουσία τῷ πάθει καὶ τῆς κοίτης ἐξαλλόμενος ἀνέδην ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις ἀνειλεῖτο. καὶ τοῦτον Σαλώμη ἡ ἀδελφὴ τὸν καιρὸν εἰς τὰς διαβολὰς ἁρπάσασα τὴν εἰς τὸν ̓Ιώσηπον ἐπεβεβαίωσεν ὑποψίαν. ὁ δ' ὑπ' ἀκράτου ζηλοτυπίας ἐκμανεὶς παραχρῆμα κτείνειν προσέταξεν ἀμφοτέρους. 1.444. μετάνοια δ' εὐθέως εἵπετο τῷ πάθει, καὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ πεσόντος ὁ ἔρως πάλιν ἀνεζωπυρεῖτο. τοσαύτη δ' ἦν φλεγμονὴ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας ὡς μηδὲ τεθνάναι δοκεῖν αὐτήν, ὑπὸ δὲ κακώσεως ὡς ζώσῃ προσλαλεῖν, μέχρι τῷ χρόνῳ διδαχθεὶς τὸ πένθος ἀνάλογον τὴν λύπην ἔσχεν τῇ πρὸς περιοῦσαν διαθέσει. 6.423. οἱ δ' ἐνστάσης ἑορτῆς, πάσχα καλεῖται, καθ' ἣν θύουσιν μὲν ἀπὸ ἐνάτης ὥρας μέχρις ἑνδεκάτης, ὥσπερ δὲ φατρία περὶ ἑκάστην γίνεται θυσίαν οὐκ ἐλάσσων ἀνδρῶν δέκα, μόνον γὰρ οὐκ ἔξεστιν δαίνυσθαι, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ συνείκοσιν ἀθροίζονται,

1.210. 7. Now Hyrcanus was, by degrees, inflamed with these discourses, and at length could bear no longer, but he summoned Herod to take his trial. Accordingly, by his father’s advice, and as soon as the affairs of Galilee would give him leave, he came up [to Jerusalem], when he had first placed garrisons in Galilee; however, he came with a sufficient body of soldiers, so many indeed that he might not appear to have with him an army able to overthrow Hyrcanus’s government, nor yet so few as to expose him to the insults of those that envied him. 1.211. However, Sextus Caesar was in fear for the young man, lest he should be taken by his enemies, and brought to punishment; so he sent some to denounce expressly to Hyrcanus that he should acquit Herod of the capital charge against him; who acquitted him accordingly, as being otherwise inclined also so to do, for he loved Herod. 1.212. 8. But Herod, supposing that he had escaped punishment without the consent of the king, retired to Sextus, to Damascus, and got everything ready, in order not to obey him if he should summon him again; whereupon those that were evil-disposed irritated Hyrcanus, and told him that Herod was gone away in anger, and was prepared to make war upon him; and as the king believed what they said, he knew not what to do, since he saw his antagonist was stronger than he was himself. 1.213. And now, since Herod was made general of Celesyria and Samaria by Sextus Caesar, he was formidable, not only from the goodwill which the nation bore him, but by the power he himself had; insomuch that Hyrcanus fell into the utmost degree of terror, and expected he would presently march against him with his army. 1.214. 9. Nor was he mistaken in the conjecture he made; for Herod got his army together, out of the anger he bare him for his threatening him with the accusation in a public court, and led it to Jerusalem, in order to throw Hyrcanus down from his kingdom; and this he had soon done, unless his father and brother had gone out together and broken the force of his fury, and this by exhorting him to carry his revenge no further than to threatening and affrighting, but to spare the king, under whom he had been advanced to such a degree of power; and that he ought not to be so much provoked at his being tried, as to forget to be thankful that he was acquitted; nor so long to think upon what was of a melancholy nature, as to be ungrateful for his deliverance; 1.215. and if we ought to reckon that God is the arbitrator of success in war, an unjust cause is of more disadvantage than an army can be of advantage; and that therefore he ought not to be entirely confident of success in a case where he is to fight against his king, his supporter, and one that had often been his benefactor, and that had never been severe to him, any otherwise than as he had hearkened to evil counselors, and this no further than by bringing a shadow of injustice upon him. So Herod was prevailed upon by these arguments, and supposed that what he had already done was sufficient for his future hopes, and that he had enough shown his power to the nation. 1.269. But the Parthians proceeded to that degree of injustice, as to fill all the country with war without denouncing it, and to demolish the city Marissa, and not only to set up Antigonus for king, but to deliver Phasaelus and Hyrcanus bound into his hands, in order to their being tormented by him. 1.270. Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus’s ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. 1.432. For when he came to the government, he sent away her whom he had before married when he was a private person, and who was born at Jerusalem, whose name was Doris, and married Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander, the son of Aristobulus; on whose account disturbances arose in his family, and that in part very soon, but chiefly after his return from Rome. 1.433. For first of all, he expelled Antipater the son of Doris, for the sake of his sons by Mariamne, out of the city, and permitted him to come thither at no other times than at the festivals. After this he slew his wife’s grandfather, Hyrcanus, when he was returned out of Parthia to him, under this pretense, that he suspected him of plotting against him. Now this Hyrcanus had been carried captive to Barzapharnes, when he overran Syria; but those of his own country beyond Euphrates were desirous he would stay with them, and this out of the commiseration they had for his condition; 1.434. and had he complied with their desires, when they exhorted him not to go over the river to Herod, he had not perished: but the marriage of his granddaughter [to Herod] was his temptation; for as he relied upon him, and was overfond of his own country, he came back to it. Herod’s provocation was this:—not that Hyrcanus made any attempt to gain the kingdom, but that it was fitter for him to be their king than for Herod. 1.435. 2. Now of the five children which Herod had by Mariamne, two of them were daughters, and three were sons; and the youngest of these sons was educated at Rome, and there died; but the two eldest he treated as those of royal blood, on account of the nobility of their mother, and because they were not born till he was king. 1.436. But then what was stronger than all this was the love that he bare to Mariamne, and which inflamed him every day to a great degree, and so far conspired with the other motives, that he felt no other troubles, on account of her he loved so entirely. But Mariamne’s hatred to him was not inferior to his love to her. 1.437. She had indeed but too just a cause of indignation from what he had done, while her boldness proceeded from his affection to her; so she openly reproached him with what he had done to her grandfather Hyrcanus, and to her brother Aristobulus; for he had not spared this Aristobulus, though he were but a child; for when he had given him the high priesthood at the age of seventeen, he slew him quickly after he had conferred that dignity upon him; but when Aristobulus had put on the holy vestments, and had approached to the altar at a festival, the multitude, in great crowds, fell into tears; whereupon the child was sent by night to Jericho, and was there dipped by the Galls, at Herod’s command, in a pool till he was drowned. 1.438. 3. For these reasons Mariamne reproached Herod, and his sister and mother, after a most contumelious manner, while he was dumb on account of his affection for her; yet had the women great indignation at her, and raised a calumny against her, that she was false to his bed; which thing they thought most likely to move Herod to anger. 1.439. They also contrived to have many other circumstances believed, in order to make the thing more credible, and accused her of having sent her picture into Egypt to Antony, and that her lust was so extravagant, as to have thus showed herself, though she was absent, to a man that ran mad after women, and to a man that had it in his power to use violence to her. 1.440. This charge fell like a thunderbolt upon Herod, and put him into disorder; and that especially, because his love to her occasioned him to be jealous, and because he considered with himself that Cleopatra was a shrewd woman, and that on her account Lysanias the king was taken off, as well as Malichus the Arabian; for his fear did not only extend to the dissolving of his marriage, but to the danger of his life. 1.441. 4. When therefore he was about to take a journey abroad, he committed his wife to Joseph, his sister Salome’s husband, as to one who would be faithful to him, and bare him goodwill on account of their kindred; he also gave him a secret injunction, that if Antony slew him, he should slay her. But Joseph, without any ill design, and only in order to demonstrate the king’s love to his wife, how he could not bear to think of being separated from her, even by death itself, discovered this grand secret to her; 1.442. upon which, when Herod was come back, and as they talked together, and he confirmed his love to her by many oaths, and assured her that he had never such an affection for any other woman as he had for her—“Yes,” says she, “thou didst, to be sure, demonstrate thy love to me by the injunctions thou gavest Joseph, when thou commandedest him to kill me.” 1.443. 5. When he heard that this grand secret was discovered, he was like a distracted man, and said that Joseph would never have disclosed that injunction of his, unless he had debauched her. His passion also made him stark mad, and leaping out of his bed, he ran about the palace after a wild manner; at which time his sister Salome took the opportunity also to blast her reputation, and confirmed his suspicion about Joseph; whereupon, out of his ungovernable jealousy and rage, he commanded both of them to be slain immediately; 1.444. but as soon as ever his passion was over, he repented of what he had done, and as soon as his anger was worn off, his affections were kindled again. And indeed the flame of his desires for her was so ardent, that he could not think she was dead, but would appear, under his disorders, to speak to her as if she were still alive, till he were better instructed by time, when his grief and trouble, now she was dead, appeared as great as his affection had been for her while she was living. 6.423. So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company,

5. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.80 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

2.80. for Apion hath the impudence to pretend, that “the Jews placed an ass’s head in their holy place;” and he affirms that this was discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes spoiled our temple, and found that ass’s head there made of gold, and worth a great deal of money.

6. Mishnah, Sukkah, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

4.9. נִסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם כֵּיצַד. צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל זָהָב מַחֲזֶקֶת שְׁלשֶׁת לֻגִּים הָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִן הַשִּׁלּוֹחַ. הִגִּיעוּ לְשַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, תָּקְעוּ וְהֵרִיעוּ וְתָקָעוּ. עָלָה בַכֶּבֶשׁ וּפָנָה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ, שְׁנֵי סְפָלִים שֶׁל כֶּסֶף הָיוּ שָׁם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁל סִיד הָיוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ מֻשְׁחָרִין פְּנֵיהֶם מִפְּנֵי הַיָּיִן. וּמְנֻקָּבִין כְּמִין שְׁנֵי חֳטָמִין דַּקִּין, אֶחָד מְעֻבֶּה וְאֶחָד דַּק, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כָּלִין בְּבַת אַחַת. מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁל מַיִם, מִזְרָחִי שֶׁל יָיִן. עֵרָה שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל יַיִן, וְשֶׁל יַיִן לְתוֹךְ שֶׁל מַיִם, יָצָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּלֹג הָיָה מְנַסֵּךְ כָּל שְׁמֹנָה. וְלַמְנַסֵּךְ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, הַגְבַּהּ יָדֶךָ, שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת נִסֵּךְ אֶחָד עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, וּרְגָמוּהוּ כָל הָעָם בְּאֶתְרוֹגֵיהֶן:

4.9. How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki'ah [long blast], a teru'ah [a staccato note] and again a teki'ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.

7. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 46.9 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

8. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 6.3 43 c, 6.3 43 d (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

9. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 3b-4a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

10. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 29a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 158

29a. והשקיף בה שתים ושלש שעות ולא העלוהו,אמאי לא העלוהו והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב טעה בכל הברכות כלן אין מעלין אותו בברכת הצדוקים מעלין אותו חיישינן שמא מין הוא,שאני שמואל הקטן דאיהו תקנה,וניחוש דלמא הדר ביה אמר אביי גמירי טבא לא הוי בישא,ולא והכתיב (יחזקאל יח, כד) ובשוב צדיק מצדקתו ועשה עול ההוא רשע מעיקרו אבל צדיק מעיקרו לא,ולא והא תנן אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך שהרי יוחנן כ"ג שמש בכהונה גדולה שמנים שנה ולבסוף נעשה צדוקי,אמר אביי הוא ינאי הוא יוחנן רבא אמר ינאי לחוד ויוחנן לחוד ינאי רשע מעיקרו ויוחנן צדיק מעיקרו הניחא לאביי אלא לרבא קשיא,אמר לך רבא צדיק מעיקרו נמי דלמא הדר ביה אי הכי אמאי לא אסקוהו,שאני שמואל הקטן דאתחיל בה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי יהושע בן לוי לא שנו אלא שלא התחיל בה אבל התחיל בה גומרה:,הני שבע דשבתא כנגד מי א"ר חלפתא בן שאול כנגד שבעה קולות שאמר דוד על המים,הני תשע דר"ה כנגד מי א"ר יצחק דמן קרטיגנין כנגד תשעה אזכרות שאמרה חנה בתפלתה דאמר מר בראש השנה נפקדה שרה רחל וחנה,הני עשרים וארבע דתעניתא כנגד מי א"ר חלבו כנגד כ"ד רננות שאמר שלמה בשעה שהכניס ארון לבית קדשי הקדשים אי הכי כל יומא נמי נמרינהו אימת אמרינהו שלמה ביומא דרחמי אנן נמי ביומא דרחמי אמרי להו:,רבי יהושע אומר מעין שמנה עשרה: מאי מעין שמנה עשרה רב אמר מעין כל ברכה וברכה ושמואל אמר הביננו ה' אלהינו לדעת דרכיך ומול את לבבנו ליראתך ותסלח לנו להיות גאולים ורחקנו ממכאובינו ודשננו בנאות ארצך ונפוצותינו מארבע תקבץ והתועים על דעתך ישפטו ועל הרשעים תניף ידיך וישמחו צדיקים בבנין עירך ובתקון היכלך ובצמיחת קרן לדוד עבדך ובעריכת נר לבן ישי משיחך טרם נקרא אתה תענה ברוך אתה ה' שומע תפלה,לייט עלה אביי אמאן דמצלי הביננו,אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל כל השנה כולה מתפלל אדם הביננו חוץ ממוצאי שבת וממוצאי ימים טובים מפני שצריך לומר הבדלה בחונן הדעת,מתקיף לה רבה בר שמואל ונימרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה מי לא תנן ר"ע אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה ר' אליעזר אומר בהודאה,אטו כל השנה כולה מי עבדינן כר' עקיבא דהשתא נמי נעביד כל השנה כולה מאי טעמא לא עבדינן כר"ע תמני סרי תקון תשסרי לא תקון הכא נמי שבע תקון תמני לא תקון,מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ונכללה מכלל הביננו ה' אלהינו המבדיל בין קדש לחול קשיא:,אמר רב ביבי בר אביי כל השנה כולה מתפלל אדם הביננו חוץ מימות הגשמים מפני שצריך לומר שאלה בברכת השנים מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ונכללה מכלל ודשננו בנאות ארצך ותן טל ומטר,אתי לאטרודי אי הכי הבדלה בחונן הדעת נמי אתי לאטרודי,אמרי התם כיון דאתיא בתחלת צלותא לא מטריד הכא כיון דאתיא באמצע צלותא מטריד,מתקיף לה רב אשי ונימרה בשומע תפלה דא"ר תנחום אמר רב אסי טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים מחזירין אותו שאלה בברכת השנים אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה בשומע תפלה והבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס טעה שאני:,גופא א"ר תנחום אמר רב אסי טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים מחזירין אותו שאלה בברכת השנים אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה בשומע תפלה והבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס,מיתיבי טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים מחזירין אותו שאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו והבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס,ל"ק הא ביחיד הא בצבור,בצבור מ"ט לא משום דשמעה משליח צבור אי הכי האי מפני שיכול לאומרה בשומע תפלה מפני ששומע משליח צבור מיבעי ליה,אלא אידי ואידי ביחיד ול"ק הא דאדכר קודם שומע תפלה

29a. and scrutinized it, in an attempt to remember the blessing for two or three hours, and they did not remove him from serving as prayer leader.,The Gemara asks: Why did they not remove him? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: One who was serving as the prayer leader before the congregation and erred in reciting any of the blessings, they do not remove him from serving as the prayer leader. However, one who erred while reciting the blessing of the heretics they remove him, as we suspect that perhaps he is a heretic and intentionally omitted the blessing to avoid cursing himself. Why, then, did they not remove Shmuel HaKatan?,The Gemara answers: Shmuel HaKatan is different because he instituted this blessing and there is no suspicion of him.,The Gemara continues: Let us suspect that perhaps he reconsidered and, although he had been righteous, he had a change of heart? Abaye said: We learned through tradition that a good person does not become wicked.,The Gemara challenges this: And does he not become wicked? Isn’t it explicitly written: “And when the righteous one returns from his righteousness and does wicked like all of the abominations that the wicked one has done, will he live? All of the righteous deeds that he has done will not be remembered given the treachery that he has carried out, and in his sin that he has transgressed, for these he shall die” (Ezekiel 18:24)? Abaye responds: That verse refers to a righteous individual who was initially wicked and repented, but ultimately returned to his evil ways. However, one who is initially righteous does not become wicked.,The Gemara asks: And does he not become wicked? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Do not be sure of yourself until the day you die, as Yoḥa the High Priest served in the High Priesthood for eighty years and ultimately became a Sadducee. Even one who is outstanding in his righteousness can become a heretic.,Abaye responded: He is Yannai he is Yoḥa. In other words, from its inception, the entire Hasmonean dynasty had the same positive attitude toward the Sadducees, and there was no distinction between Yoḥa Hyrcanus and Alexander Yannai. Yoḥa the High Priest had Sadducee leanings from the outset. Rava said: Yannai is distinct and Yoḥa is distinct. They did not share the same position in this regard. Yannai was wicked from the outset and Yoḥa was righteous from the outset. If so, it works out well according to Abaye’s opinion; however, according to Rava’s opinion, it is difficult. How could Yoḥa, a righteous individual, have changed and turned wicked?,The Gemara responds: Rava could have said to you: There is also room for concern that one who is righteous from the outset will perhaps reconsider and turn wicked, as was the case with Yoḥa the High Priest. If so, the original question is difficult: Why did they not remove Shmuel HaKatan from serving as the prayer leader?,The Gemara answers: The case of Shmuel HaKatan is different, as he began reciting the blessing of the heretics and while reciting it he became confused and forgot the end of the blessing. Consequently, he was not suspected of heretical leanings. Indeed, Rav Yehuda said that Rav, and some say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: They only taught that one who errs while reciting the blessing of the heretics is removed in a case where he did not begin reciting it. But if he began reciting it, then we allow him to collect his thoughts and finish reciting it.,To this point, the Gemara discussed allusions to the nineteen blessings that constitute the weekday Amida prayer. The Gemara asks: Corresponding to what were these seven blessings of the Shabbat Amida prayer instituted? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul said: Corresponding to the seven “voices” which David mentioned on the waters; in other words, the seven times that “the voice of God” is mentioned in Psalms 29, which served as the source for the weekday prayer.,The Gemara asks further: Corresponding to what were these nine blessings of the Rosh HaShana additional prayer instituted? Rabbi Yitzḥak of Kartignin said: They correspond to the nine mentions of God’s name that Hannah said in her prayer (I Samuel 2:10). The connection between Hannah’s prayer and Rosh HaShana is based on what the Master said: On Rosh HaShana, Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered and the divine decree that they would conceive their sons was issued.,The Gemara continues: Corresponding to what were these twenty-four blessings of the Amida prayer of the fast days instituted? Rabbi Ḥelbo said: They correspond to the twenty-four “songs” that Solomon said when he brought the ark into the Holy of Holies during the dedication of the Temple, as there are twenty-four expressions of song, prayer, and supplication there (I Kings 8). The Gemara asks: If so, then let us say these twenty-four blessing every day. The Gemara answers: When did Solomon say them? On a day of supplication for mercy. We, too, say them on a day of supplication for mercy.,We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua says that each day one recites an abridged version of the prayer of eighteen blessings. The Gemara asks: What is the abridged version of the prayer of eighteen blessings? There are different opinions. Rav said: One recites an abridged version of each and every blessing. Shmuel said: An abridged version of the prayer of eighteen blessings refers to a blessing composed specifically to be recited in place of the thirteen middle blessings. It contains references to each of the thirteen middle blessings. The formula for that blessing is: Grant us understanding, Lord our God, to know Your ways, and sensitize our hearts so that we may revere You, and forgive us so that we may be redeemed, and keep us far from our suffering, and satisfy us with the pastures of Your land, and gather our scattered people from the four corners of the earth, and those who go astray shall be judged according to Your will, and raise Your hand against the wicked, and may the righteous rejoice in the rebuilding of Your city, and the restoration of Your Sanctuary, and in the flourishing of Your servant David, and in establishing a light for Your Messiah, son of Yishai. Before we call, may You answer. Blessed are You, Lord, Who listens to prayer.”,Although Shmuel mentioned this abridged prayer, Abaye would curse anyone who recited the prayer: Grant us understanding, as he held that one may recite it only in exigent circumstances (Rabbi Ḥael, Me’iri).,The Gemara further restricts the occasions when one may recite the abridged prayer. Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One may recite: Grant us understanding throughout the entire year, except for in the evening prayer at the conclusion of Shabbat and at the conclusion of Festivals, because he must recite the prayer of distinction [havdala] in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge.,Rabba bar Shmuel strongly objects to this: After reciting the three initial blessings, let us say havdala as an independent fourth blessing, and afterwards recite the prayer of Grant us understanding. This is feasible. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He says havdala as an independent fourth blessing? Rabbi Eliezer says: He says havdala in the blessing of thanksgiving.,The Gemara responds: Do we practice in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva throughout the entire year regarding this issue, that we will also practice this way now? Throughout the entire year, what is the reason that we do not practice in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? Because they instituted eighteen blessings, they did not institute nineteen. Here too, they instituted seven blessings, they did not institute eight. Therefore, the possibility to recite havdala as an independent fourth blessing is rejected.,Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: Let us include havdala in the framework of the abridged blessing: Grant us understanding, Lord our God, Who distinguishes between sacred and profane. No response was offered to this objection, and it remains difficult.,Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: There is an additional restriction that applies to the abridged prayer. One may recite Grant us understanding throughout the entire year, except during the rainy season, because he must recite the request for rain in the blessing of the years. Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: Let us include the request for rain in the framework of the abridged blessing: And satisfy us with the pastures of Your land, and grant dew and rain.,The Gemara responds: That is unfeasible, as he will become confused by introducing a new element to the standard formula of the blessing. The Gemara asks: If so, by introducing havdala in the framework of the abridged blessing in the section alluding to the blessing, Who graciously grants knowledge, he will also become confused. Why did the Gemara fail to respond to Mar Zutra’s strong objection with regard to havdala in that manner?,The Gemara answers: They say that these cases are different: There, regarding havdala, since the introduction of the new element comes at the beginning of the prayer, he will not become confused. Here, since the request for rain comes in the middle of the prayer, he will become confused.,Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: If so, let us say the request for rain in the framework of the abridged blessing in the section alluding to the blessing Who listens to prayer. As Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rav Asi said: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the blessing on the revival of the dead, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the years, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it because he can recite it in the blessing Who listens to prayer. And one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. One can ask for rain in the blessing Who listens to prayer, and, consequently, can introduce it at the end of the abridged blessing without becoming confused. The Gemara responds: One who erred is different, and only then does he have the option to ask for rain in the blessing Who listens to prayer. Ab initio, the request for rain may not be inserted there.,The statement that Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rav Asi said was incidental to the previous discussion. The Gemara attempts to understand the matter itself. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rav Asi said: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the blessing on the revival of the dead, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the blessing of the years, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it because he can recite it in the blessing Who listens to prayer. And one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine.,The Gemara raised an objection based on what was taught in the Tosefta: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in the blessing on the revival of the dead, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. One who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the blessing of the years, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine. The Tosefta contradicts the statement of Rabbi Tanḥum with regard to one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the blessing of the years.,The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This case, where we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, refers to a situation where he is praying as an individual. While that case, where we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, refers to a situation where he is praying as part of a congregation.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: When praying as part of a congregation, what is the reason that he need not need return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it? Because he can fulfill his obligation when he hears it from the communal prayer leader in the repetition of the Amida prayer. If so, Rabbi Tanḥum’s formulation is imprecise. That which he said that he need not return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it because he can recite it in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, should have been: Because he hears it from the communal prayer leader. This proves that the attempt to rebuff the challenge from the Tosefta to Rabbi Tanḥum was incorrect.,Rather, both this statement of Rabbi Tanḥum and that statement in the Tosefta refer to one praying as an individual, and it is, nevertheless, not difficult. This case, where we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, refers to a case where he recalls his error before he reaches the blessing: Who listens to prayer, in which case he can ask for rain in that blessing.

11. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 109b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

109b. as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally he became a servant of idol worship.,Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say that even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a priest who served in idol worship and repented, his offering in the Temple is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable.,Rav Naḥman clarifies: In what manner did he serve in idol worship? If we say that he served in idol worship unwittingly, what does the baraita mean when it says: And repented? He is already repentant, as he never intended to sin in the first place. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case of intentional idol worship. And if the baraita is referring to sprinkling the blood of an idolatrous offering, when he repents, what of it? Hasn’t he performed idolatrous service, thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? Rather, is it not referring to the slaughter of an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple.,And as for Rav Sheshet, he could have said to you that actually the baraita is referring to unwitting slaughter. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the priest is repentant from the outset, as when he served in idol worship he served unwittingly, then his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord and is acceptable. But if not, i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, his subsequent offering in the Temple is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.,§ The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bowed to an object of idol worship, Rav Naḥman says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord. In a case where a priest acknowledges an object of idol worship as a divinity, Rav Naḥman says: If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, his offering is an aroma pleasing to the Lord. And Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasing to the Lord.,Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: And it was necessary to teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. As, had the Sages taught us only this first case, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only in that case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, because he performed a service for idolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. But in a case where the priest merely performed slaughter, since he did not perform a service for idolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet concedes to the opinion of Rav Naḥman.,And had the Sages taught us only the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing slaughter for an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed a sacrificial rite for idolatry. But if he merely bowed to the idol, since he did not perform a sacrificial rite for idolatry, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.,And had the Sages taught us only the case of a priest bowing to an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified because he performed an action for idolatry. But if he only acknowledged the idol as a divinity, which is mere speech, there is room to say that Rav Sheshet does not disqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was necessary to teach this case as well.,§ The mishna teaches: And needless to say, if priests served for something else, a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: From the fact that it says: Needless to say, if they served for something else, by inference, the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship, but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God.,It is taught in a baraita like the one who says that the temple of Onias is not a temple of idol worship. As it is taught: During the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to his associates: This year, he will die, euphemistically referring to himself. They said to him: From where do you know?,Shimon HaTzaddik said to them: In previous years, every Yom Kippur, upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which I would be met by an old man who was dressed in white, and his head was wrapped in white, and he would enter the Holy of Holies with me, and he would leave with me. But this year, I was met by an old man who was dressed in black, and his head was wrapped in black, and he entered the Holy of Holies with me, but he did not leave with me. Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.,Indeed, after the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot, he was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting the Priestly Benediction with the ineffable name of God.,At the time of his death, he said to the Sages: Onias, my son, will serve as High Priest in my stead. Shimi, Onias’ brother, became jealous of him, as Shimi was two and a half years older than Onias. Shimi said to Onias treacherously: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. Shimi dressed Onias in a tunic [be’unkeli] and girded him with a ribbon [betziltzul] as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and stood him next to the altar. Shimi said to his fellow priests: Look what this man vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.,The fellow priests of Onias wanted to kill him because he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias ran away from them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this person, Shimi, who did not enter the position of High Priest, acted with such jealousy, all the more so will one who enters a prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship.,Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The incident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not accept the position of High Priest because his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him, so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. And even so, even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, Onias was jealous of his brother Shimi. Onias said to Shimi: Come and I will teach you the order of the service of the High Priest. And Onias dressed Shimi in a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar. Onias said to his fellow priests: Look what this man, Shimi, vowed and fulfilled for his beloved, that he had said to her: On the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon.,His fellow priests wanted to kill Shimi. Shimi then told them the entire incident, that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests wanted to kill Onias. Onias ran away from them, and they ran after him. Onias ran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him, and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificed offerings upon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord” (Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God.,And when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one, Onias, who fled from the position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with such jealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, all the more so will one who wants to enter a prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.,§ As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: Initially, in response to anyone who would say to me: Ascend to the position of Nasi, I would tie him up and place him in front of a lion out of anger for his suggestion. Now that I have become the Nasi, in response to anyone who tells me to leave the position, I would throw a kettle [kumkum] of boiling water at him out of anger at his suggestion.,It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. As evidence of this principle, Saul initially fled from the kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: “When they sought him he could not be found…Behold he has hidden himself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:21–22). But when he ascended to the kingship he tried to kill David, who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18–27).,§ Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?,Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse for that which is taught in a baraita: After the downfall of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II Kings, chapters 18–19), King Hezekiah emerged from Jerusalem and found the gentile princes Sennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, sitting in carriages [bikronot] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols, and they fulfilled their vow, as it is stated in Isaiah’s prophecy about Egypt: “In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan

12. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 66a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared isolated motif •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared structure Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא

66a. Your ox was used by a man for an act of bestiality and is therefore unfit for an offering, and the other, the owner of the ox, is silent, the witness is deemed credible. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Bekhorot 41a): And with regard to an animal that was used for a transgression or that killed, if this is attested to by one witness or by the owner, he is deemed credible. The Gemara clarifies this case: What are the circumstances of this case of the mishna, where the knowledge is established by one witness? If the owner admits to the claim, this is the same as: By the owner. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the owner remains silent?,The Gemara comments: And each of these statements of Abaye is necessary. As, had he taught us only that first case, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: Were it not for the fact that he himself was convinced that he had committed a transgression, he would not commit the transgression of bringing a non-sacred animal to the Temple courtyard on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission.,But if the witness said: Your ritually pure foods were rendered ritually impure, and the accused was silent, we would say: The reason that he is silent and refrains from denying the claim is that he thinks he is not suffering any significant loss, as the food is fit for him to eat on his days of ritual impurity, because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods.,And had Abaye taught us only the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason this witness is deemed credible is that he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity, and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. But in the case of: His ox was used by a man for an act of bestiality, the owner of the ox can say with regard to his animal: Not all the oxen stand ready to be sacrificed as an offering on the altar. Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore necessary for Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband is told by one witness that his wife committed adultery, and the husband remains silent, what is the halakha? Abaye said: The witness is deemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible. Why not? Because it is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.,Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? It happened that there was a certain blind man who would review mishnayot before Mar Shmuel. One day the blind man was late for him and was not arriving. Mar Shmuel sent a messenger after him to assist him. While the messenger was going to the blind man’s house by one way, the blind man arrived at the house of study by a different route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. When the messenger came back, he said that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that his wife committed adultery. The blind man came before Mar Shmuel to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel said to him: If this messenger is trusted by you, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her.,Abaye comments: What, is it not correct to say that this means that if he is trusted by you that he is not a thief but is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. And Rava explains that Mar Shmuel meant: If he is trusted by you like two witnesses, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof.,And Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? As it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred with King Yannai, who went to the region of Koḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoiced with a great happiness over his victory. And he subsequently summoned all the Sages of the Jewish people and said to them: Our ancestors in their poverty would eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate.,And there was one person present, a scoffer, a man of an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, the Sages, are against you. In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: And what shall I do to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: Have them stand by wearing the frontplate between your eyes. Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. He had the Pharisees stand by wearing the frontplate between his eyes.,Now there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you, i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron. The Gemara explains this last comment: As they would say that Yannai’s mother was taken captive in Modi’in, and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a ḥalal. And the matter was investigated and was not discovered, i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. And the Sages of Israel were expelled in the king’s rage, due to this rumor.,And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel. In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. But you are a king and a High Priest. Is this your judgment as well? Yannai replied: And what should I do? Elazar responded: If you listen to my advice, crush them. Yannai countered: But what will become of the Torah? He retorted: Behold, it is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study. We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into Yannai, as he should have said to Elazar ben Po’ira: This works out well with regard to the Written Torah, as it can be studied by all on their own, but what will become of the Oral Torah? The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The baraita continues: Immediately, the evil arose and caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate of Torah until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its former glory. This completes the baraita.,Abaye asks: What are the circumstances of this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? If we say that two witnesses said that she was taken captive, and two others said that she was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on these who said that she was not taken captive? Instead, rely on these who said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false.,Rather, it must be referring to one witness who testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. And the reason that the lone witness is not deemed credible is only that he is contradicted by the other two, from which it may be inferred that if not for that fact, he would be deemed credible. This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind.,And Rava could reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: Actually, one can say that there were two witnesses who testified that she was captured and two who testified that she was not, and the case was decided in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi says in a different context, that it is referring to conspiring witnesses. The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. Here too, it is referring to witnesses who rendered the first set conspiring witnesses.,And if you wish, say that this is in accordance with the version of the story stated by Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replaced Yannai’s mother with a maidservant. The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set.,Rava says:

13. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 19a, 19b, 91a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

91a. אמרה ליה ברתיה שבקיה ואנא מהדרנא ליה שני יוצרים יש בעירנו אחד יוצר מן המים ואחד יוצר מן הטיט איזה מהן משובח א"ל זה שיוצר מן המים א"ל מן המים צר מן הטיט לא כל שכן,דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא ק"ו מכלי זכוכית מה כלי זכוכית שעמלן ברוח בשר ודם נשברו יש להן תקנה בשר ודם שברוחו של הקב"ה על אחת כמה וכמה,א"ל ההוא מינא לר' אמי אמריתו דשכבי חיי והא הוו עפרא ועפרא מי קא חיי א"ל אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שאמר לעבדיו לכו ובנו לי פלטרין גדולים במקום שאין מים ועפר הלכו ובנו אותו לימים נפלו אמר להם חזרו ובנו אותו במקום שיש עפר ומים אמרו לו אין אנו יכולין,כעס עליהם ואמר להן במקום שאין מים ועפר בניתם עכשיו שיש מים ועפר על אחת כמה וכמה ואם אי אתה מאמין צא לבקעה וראה עכבר שהיום חציו בשר וחציו אדמה למחר השריץ ונעשה כלו בשר שמא תאמר לזמן מרובה עלה להר וראה שהיום אין בו אלא חלזון אחד למחר ירדו גשמים ונתמלא כולו חלזונות,א"ל ההוא מינא לגביהא בן פסיסא ווי לכון חייביא דאמריתון מיתי חיין דחיין מיתי דמיתי חיין א"ל ווי לכון חייביא דאמריתון מיתי לא חיין דלא הוו חיי דהוי חיי לא כ"ש א"ל חייביא קרית לי אי קאימנא בעיטנא בך ופשיטנא לעקמותך מינך א"ל אם אתה עושה כן רופא אומן תקרא ושכר הרבה תטול,ת"ר בעשרים וארבעה בניסן איתנטילו דימוסנאי מיהודה ומירושלים כשבאו בני אפריקיא לדון עם ישראל לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אמרו לו ארץ כנען שלנו היא דכתיב (במדבר לד, ב) ארץ כנען לגבולותיה וכנען אבוהון דהנהו אינשי הוה,אמר להו גביהא בן פסיסא לחכמים תנו לי רשות ואלך ואדון עמהן לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אם ינצחוני אמרו הדיוט שבנו נצחתם ואם אני אנצח אותם אמרו להם תורת משה נצחתכם נתנו לו רשות והלך ודן עמהם,אמר להם מהיכן אתם מביאים ראייה אמרו לו מן התורה אמר להן אף אני לא אביא לכם ראייה אלא מן התורה שנאמר (בראשית ט, כה) ויאמר ארור כנען עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו עבד שקנה נכסים עבד למי ונכסים למי ולא עוד אלא שהרי כמה שנים שלא עבדתונו,אמר להם אלכסנדרוס מלכא החזירו לו תשובה אמרו לו תנו לנו זמן שלשה ימים נתן להם זמן בדקו ולא מצאו תשובה מיד ברחו והניחו שדותיהן כשהן זרועות וכרמיהן כשהן נטועות ואותה שנה שביעית היתה,שוב פעם אחת באו בני מצרים לדון עם ישראל לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אמרו לו הרי הוא אומר (שמות יב, לו) וה' נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאילום תנו לנו כסף וזהב שנטלתם ממנו,אמר גביהא בן פסיסא לחכמים תנו לי רשות ואלך ואדון עמהן לפני אלכסנדרוס אם ינצחוני אמרו להם הדיוט שבנו נצחתם ואם אני אנצח אותם אמרו להם תורת משה רבינו נצחתכם נתנו לו רשות והלך ודן עמהן,אמר להן מהיכן אתם מביאין ראייה אמרו לו מן התורה אמר להן אף אני לא אביא לכם ראייה אלא מן התורה שנאמר (שמות יב, מ) ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה תנו לנו שכר עבודה של ששים ריבוא ששיעבדתם במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה,אמר להן אלכסנדרוס מוקדון החזירו לו תשובה אמרו לו תנו לנו זמן שלשה ימים נתן להם זמן בדקו ולא מצאו תשובה מיד הניחו שדותיהן כשהן זרועות וכרמיהן כשהן נטועות וברחו ואותה שנה שביעית היתה,ושוב פעם אחת באו בני ישמעאל ובני קטורה לדון עם ישראל לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אמרו לו ארץ כנען שלנו ושלכם דכתיב (בראשית כה, יב) ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם וכתיב (בראשית כה, יט) אלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם,אמר להן גביהא בן פסיסא לחכמים תנו לי רשות ואלך ואדון עמהם לפני אלכסנדרוס מוקדון אם ינצחוני אמרו הדיוט שבנו נצחתם ואם אני אנצח אותם אמרו להם תורת משה רבינו נצחתכם נתנו לו רשות הלך ודן עמהן,אמר להם מהיכן אתם מביאין ראייה אמרו לו מן התורה אמר להן אף אני לא אביא ראייה אלא מן התורה שנאמר (בראשית כה, ה) ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק ולבני הפילגשים אשר לאברהם נתן אברהם מתנות אב שנתן אגטין לבניו בחייו ושיגר זה מעל זה כלום יש לזה על זה כלום מאי מתנות אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא מלמד שמסר להם שם טומאה,אמר ליה אנטונינוס לרבי גוף ונשמה יכולין לפטור עצמן מן הדין כיצד גוף אומר נשמה חטאת שמיום שפירשה ממני הריני מוטל כאבן דומם בקבר ונשמה אומרת גוף חטא שמיום שפירשתי ממנו הריני פורחת באויר כצפור אמר ליה אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שהיה לו פרדס נאה והיה בו

91a. The daughter of the emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: Leave him, and I will respond to him with a parable. She said: There are two craftsmen in our city; one fashions vessels from water, and one fashions vessels from mortar. Which is more noteworthy? The emperor said to her: It is that craftsman that fashions vessels from water. His daughter said to him: If he fashions a vessel from the water, all the more so is it not clear that he can fashion vessels from mortar? By the same token, if God was able to create the world from water, He is certainly able to resurrect people from dust.,The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that resurrection of the dead a fortiori from glass vessels: If concerning glass vessels, which are fashioned by the breath of those of flesh and blood, who blow and form the vessels, and yet if they break they can be repaired, as they can be melted and subsequently blown again, then with regard to those of flesh and blood, whose souls are a product of the breath of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so can God restore them to life.,The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to Rabbi Ami: You say that the dead will live. Aren’t they dust? And does dust come to life? Rabbi Ami said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a flesh-and-blood king who said to his servants: Go and construct for me a great palace [palterin] in a place where there is no water and earth available. They went and constructed it. Sometime later, the palace collapsed. The king said to them: Return to your labor and construct the palace in a place where there is earth and water available. They said to him: We are unable to do so.,The king became angry at them and said to them: If in a place where there is no water and earth available you constructed a palace, now that there is water and earth available all the more so should you be able to do so. Similarly, concerning man, whom God created ex nihilo, all the more so will God be able to resurrect him from dust. And if you do not believe that a being can be created from dust, go out to the valley and see an akhbar, a creature that today is half flesh and half earth, and tomorrow the being will develop and all of it will become flesh. Lest you say that creation of living creatures is a matter that develops over an extended period, ascend a mountain and see that today there is only one snail there; then ascend tomorrow, after rain will have fallen, and see that it will be entirely filled with snails.,The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will come to life. The way of the world is that those who are alive die. How can you say that the dead will come to life? Geviha ben Pesisa said to him: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will not come to life. If those who were not in existence come to life, is it not reasonable all the more so that those who were once alive will come to life again? The heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa angrily: You called me wicked? If I stand, I will kick you and flatten your hump, as Geviha ben Pesisa was a hunchback. Geviha ben Pesisa said to him jocularly: If you do so, you will be called an expert doctor and will take high wages for your services.,§ Apropos Geviha ben Pesisa and his cleverness in debate, the Gemara cites additional incidents where he represented the Jewish people in debates. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that the land of Canaan is yours? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And he said: Cursed will be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren” (Genesis 9:25). And with regard to a slave who acquired property, the slave belongs to whom and the property belongs to whom? The slave and his property belong to the master. And moreover, it is several years now that you have not served us. Therefore, not only are you not entitled to the land, there are additional debts that must be repaid, as well as a return to enslavement.,Alexander the king said to the people of Afrikiya: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to Alexander: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they fled and abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted. The Gemara adds: And since that year was a Sabbatical Year, with the accompanying restrictions on agricultural activity, this benefited the Jewish people, as they were able to consume the produce of those fields and vineyards.,The Gemara relates: On another occasion, the people of Egypt came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. The Egyptian people said to Alexander: It says in the Torah: “And the Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent them” (Exodus 12:36). Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: From where are you citing proof that you are entitled to the silver and gold? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years” (Exodus 12:40), during which they were enslaved to Egypt, engaged in hard manual labor. Give us the wages for the work performed by the 600,000 men above the age of twenty (see Exodus 12:37) whom you enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty years.,Alexander of Macedon said to the people of Egypt: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to him: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted, and fled. The Gemara adds: And that year was a Sabbatical Year.,The Gemara relates: And on another occasion, the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Keturah came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. They said to the Jewish people before Alexander: The land of Canaan is both ours and yours, as it is written: “And these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore unto Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), and it is written: “And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19). Therefore, the land should be divided between Abraham’s heirs.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.,Geviha ben Pesisa said to the descendants of Ishmael: From where are you citing proof that the land of Canaan belongs to both you and the Jewish people? They said to him: From the Torah. Geviha ben Pesisa said to them: I too will cite proof to you only from the Torah, as it is stated: “And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from his son, while he yet lived, eastward, to the east country” (Genesis 25:5–6). In the case of a father who gave a document of bequest [agatin] to his sons during his lifetime and sent one of the sons away from the other, does the one who was sent away have any claim against the other? The father himself divided his property. The Gemara asks: What were these gifts that Abraham gave to the sons of the concubines? Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: This teaches that Abraham provided them with the name of the supernatural spirit of impurity, enabling them to perform witchcraft.,§ Apropos exchanges with prominent gentile leaders, the Gemara cites an exchange where Antoninos, the Roman emperor, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The body and the soul are able to exempt themselves from judgment for their sins. How so? The body says: The soul sinned, as from the day of my death when it departed from me, I am cast like a silent stone in the grave, and do not sin. And the soul says: The body sinned, as from the day that I departed from it, I am flying in the air like a bird, incapable of sin. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who had a fine orchard, and in it there were

14. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 22b-23a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, identical stories •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156

15. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 69a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, identical stories •rabbinic accounts, identification of parallels in josephus, shared events and people Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156

69a. וסיפא איצטריכא ליה פושטין ומקפלין ומניחין תחת ראשיהם,פושטין ומקפלין ומניחין אותן תחת ראשיהן שמעת מינה בגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן אמר רב פפא לא תימא תחת ראשיהן אלא אימא כנגד ראשיהן אמר רב משרשיא שמעת מינה תפילין מן הצד שפיר דמי,הכי נמי מסתברא דכנגד ראשיהן דאי סלקא דעתך תחת ראשיהן ותיפוק לי משום כלאים דהא איכא אבנט ונהי נמי דניתנו ליהנות בהן הא מתהני מכלאים,הניחא למ"ד אבנטו של כהן גדול (בשאר ימות השנה) זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט אלא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כ"ג לא זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר,וכי תימא כלאים בלבישה והעלאה הוא דאסור בהצעה שרי והתניא (ויקרא יט, יט) לא יעלה עליך אבל אתה מותר להציעו תחתיך אבל אמרו חכמים אסור לעשות כן שמא תיכרך נימא אחת על בשרו,וכ"ת דמפסיק ליה מידי ביני ביני והאמר ר"ש בן פזי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אמר רבי משום קהלא קדישא שבירושלים אפי' עשר מצעות זו על גב זו וכלאים תחתיהן אסור לישן עליהן אלא לאו שמע מינה כנגד ראשיהן שמע מינה,רב אשי אמר לעולם תחת ראשיהן והא קא מתהני מכלאים בגדי כהונה קשין הן כי הא דאמר רב הונא בריה דר' יהושע האי נמטא גמדא דנרש שריא,ת"ש בגדי כהונה היוצא בהן למדינה אסור ובמקדש בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה מותר מפני שבגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן ש"מ,ובמדינה לא והתניא בעשרים וחמשה [בטבת] יום הר גרזים [הוא] דלא למספד,יום שבקשו כותיים את בית אלהינו מאלכסנדרוס מוקדון להחריבו ונתנו להם באו והודיעו את שמעון הצדיק מה עשה לבש בגדי כהונה ונתעטף בבגדי כהונה ומיקירי ישראל עמו ואבוקות של אור בידיהן וכל הלילה הללו הולכים מצד זה והללו הולכים מצד זה עד שעלה עמוד השחר,כיון שעלה עמוד השחר אמר להם מי הללו אמרו לו יהודים שמרדו בך כיון שהגיע לאנטיפטרס זרחה חמה ופגעו זה בזה כיון שראה לשמעון הצדיק ירד ממרכבתו והשתחוה לפניו אמרו לו מלך גדול כמותך ישתחוה ליהודי זה אמר להם דמות דיוקנו של זה מנצחת לפני בבית מלחמתי,אמר להם למה באתם אמרו אפשר בית שמתפללים בו עליך ועל מלכותך שלא תחרב יתעוך עובדי כוכבים להחריבו אמר להם מי הללו אמרו לו כותיים הללו שעומדים לפניך אמר להם הרי הם מסורין בידיכם,מיד נקבום בעקביהם ותלאום בזנבי סוסיהם והיו מגררין אותן על הקוצים ועל הברקנים עד שהגיעו להר גרזים כיון שהגיעו להר גריזים חרשוהו וזרעוהו כרשינין כדרך שבקשו לעשות לבית אלהינו ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט,אי בעית אימא ראויין לבגדי כהונה ואי בעית אימא (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך,חזן הכנסת נוטל ספר תורה ש"מ חולקין כבוד לתלמיד במקום הרב אמר אביי כולה משום כבודו דכ"ג היא,וכהן גדול עומד מכלל שהוא יושב והא אנן תנן

69a. That mishna’s teaching highlighting the prohibition to sleep in priestly vestments is needed for the latter clause of that mishna, which states: They remove their priestly vestments and fold them and place them under their heads. Since they are allowed to sleep on them, it must be emphasized that they may not sleep while wearing them.,The Gemara considers resolving the dilemma from the latter clause: They remove their priestly vestments and fold them and place them under their heads. The Gemara suggests: Learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the mishna means they may actually place the vestments under their heads as a pillow; rather, say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads. Rav Mesharshiyya said: Given this understanding of that mishna, one can learn from here that one who places phylacteries to the side of his head when he sleeps has done well; there is no concern that he will turn over in his sleep and lie upon them.,So too, it is reasonable to say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads and not under their heads; as, if it could enter your mind to say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed under their heads, and I would derive that it is prohibited due to the fact the priestly vestments contain a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, as among them there is the belt, which is woven from a mixture of wool and linen. And even if it is assumed that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, it would still be prohibited to lie upon them because by doing so the priests would be deriving benefit from a garment made of diverse kinds.,The Gemara elaborates on the preceding argument: If one claims that the mishna permits priests to sleep upon their vestments, it works out well according to the one who said: The belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur, which does not contain diverse kinds, is the same as the belt of a common priest. According to this view, the common priest’s belt does not contain diverse kinds, and therefore it may be permitted for a priest to sleep upon it. However, according to the one who said that the High Priest’s belt on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of a common priest, and that the belt of the common priest is made of diverse kinds, what is there to say? How could the mishna possibly permit priests to sleep upon their vestments?,And if you say that with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds only wearing or placing the garment upon oneself is prohibited, but spreading them out and lying upon them on is permitted, and as such it should be permitted for the priests to sleep upon their vestments, this is incorrect. As, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states: “Neither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds”(Leviticus 19:19), which implies: But you are permitted to spread it beneath you to lie upon. This is true according to Torah law, but the Sages said: It is prohibited to do so, lest a fiber wrap upon his flesh, which would lead to the transgression of the Torah prohibition.,And if you say that a priest could still avoid the prohibition of diverse kinds by placing a separation between himself and the belt containing diverse kinds, didn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Even if there are ten mattresses piled one atop the other and a garment of diverse kinds is placed underneath them all, it is prohibited to sleep upon them? This is because the rabbinic decree is applied equally to all cases irrespective of whether the original concern exists. Therefore, there can be no way for the priests to sleep upon the vestments without transgressing the prohibition of diverse kinds. Rather, must one not conclude from the preceding discussion that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads? The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that this is indeed so.,Rav Ashi said: Actually, the mishna may be understood as permitting the vestments to be placed under their heads. One should not object that by doing so the priests would be deriving benefit from a garment made of diverse kinds because priestly vestments, and specifically the belt, are stiff, and therefore the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to them. This is in accordance with that which Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: This stiff felt [namta], made of diverse kinds, that is produced in the city of Neresh, is permitted, since a stiff object does not wrap around the body to provide warmth, and therefore the person wearing is not considered to have derived benefit from it.,Since the mishna’s intention is uncertain, it cannot provide a clear proof for the dilemma of whether it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. The Gemara therefore suggests another proof: Come and hear an explicit baraita concerning this issue: With regard to priestly vestments, it is prohibited to go out to the country, i.e., outside the Temple, while wearing them, but in the Temple it is permitted for the priests to wear them, whether during the Temple service or not during the service, due to the fact that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. Learn from this that it is indeed permitted.,§ The baraita taught that the priestly vestments may not be worn outside the Temple. The Gemara challenges this: Is it really not permitted to wear priestly vestments in the country? Wasn’t it taught in another baraita, in Megillat Ta’anit: The twenty-fifth of Tevet is known as the day of Mount Gerizim, which was established as a joyful day, and therefore eulogizing is not permitted.,What occurred on that date? It was on that day that the Samaritans [kutim] requested the House of our Lord from Alexander the Macedonian in order to destroy it, and he gave it to them, i.e., he gave them permission to destroy it. People came and informed the High Priest, Shimon HaTzaddik, of what had transpired. What did he do? He donned the priestly vestments and wrapped himself in the priestly vestments. And the nobles of the Jewish People were with him, with torches of fire in their hands. And all that night, these, the representatives of the Jewish people, approached from this side, and those, the armies of Alexander and the Samaritans, approached from that side, until dawn, when they finally saw one another.,When dawn arrived, Alexander said to the Samaritans: Who are these people coming to meet us? They said to him: These are the Jews who rebelled against you. When he reached Antipatris, the sun shone and the two camps met each other. When Alexander saw Shimon HaTzaddik, he descended from his chariot and bowed before him. His escorts said to him: Should an important king such as you bow to this Jew? He said to them: I do so because the image of this man’s face is victorious before me on my battlefields, i.e., when I fight I see his image going before me as a sign of victory, and therefore I know that he has supreme sanctity.,He said to the representatives of the Jewish people: Why have you come? They said to him: Is it possible that the Temple, the house in which we pray for you and for your kingdom not to be destroyed, gentiles will try to mislead you into destroying it, and we would remain silent and not tell you? He said to them: Who are these people who want to destroy it? The Jews said to him: They are these Samaritans who stand before you. He said to them: If so, they are delivered into your hands to deal with them as you please.,Immediately, they stabbed the Samaritans in their heels and hung them from their horses’ tails and continued to drag them over the thorns and thistles until they reached Mount Gerizim. When they arrived at Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritans had their temple, they plowed it over and seeded the area with leeks, a symbol of total destruction. This was just as they had sought to do to the House of our Lord. And they made that day a festival to celebrate the salvation of the Temple and the defeat of the Samaritans.,It is apparent from the baraita that Shimon HaTzaddik wore the priestly vestments even outside the Temple. This would seem to be in contravention of the ruling of the other baraita prohibiting this. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: If you wish, say Shimon HaTzaddik did not wear a set of genuine, sanctified priestly vestments; rather, he wore garments that were fitting to be priestly vestments in that they were made of the same material and design. And if you wish, say instead that he indeed wore a set of genuine priestly vestments, but in times of great need, such as when one seeks to prevent the destruction of the Temple, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord, they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126).,§ It was taught in the mishna: The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue, who gives it to the deputy High Priest, who gives it to the High Priest. The Gemara suggests: Learn from here that honor may be given to a student in the presence of the teacher. Although the High Priest is considered everyone’s teacher and master, honor was nevertheless extended to other individuals without fear of impugning the High Priest’s honor. Abaye said: A proof may not be adduced from here because the entire process is for the honor of the High Priest. The passing of the Torah scroll to people of increasing importance demonstrates that the High Priest is considered the most important of all those present.,§ It was further taught in the mishna: The High Priest stands and receives the scroll from the Deputy. By inference, until that point he had been sitting. But didn’t we learn in a mishna:

16. Anon., Abot De Rabbi Nathan, A 5, B 10 (7th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 157

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database